These muscle/ponycars seemed such a great idea at the time-both in the late 1960s when the supply of oil and hormonal baby-boomers both seemed inexhaustible, and again in 2005/6 when Mustang styling went all 1967, prompting Dodge and Chevy to hustle out their own retromobile concepts. Gas was still (relatively) cheap, power was easy. But quicker than you can computer-engineer a rear-drive sedan into a coupe, oil prices and CAFE regs have yanked the rug out from under this class. Can V-6 engines, cylinder deactivation, and manual transmissions help Dodge earn a piece of the neo-pony pie with its gorgeous Challenger?
Click Here For More Dodge Challenger SE, R/T, SRT8 Images
Challenger SE V-6
This price leader was never expected to account for more than about 30% of Challenger volume, but the current economic climate and fear of ever-rising gas prices may cause buyers to pay more attention to the less muscular versions of all three neo-ponies. How will the Dodge stack up? Its LX platform architecture offered two V-6s from which to choose, and Dodge opted for the larger 3.5L, which spins the dyno needles to an even 250 on both the horsepower and torque meters. That’s well up on archrival Ford’s 4.0L Mustang engine, which spools out just 210 hp and 240 lb-ft. Both are single-overhead cam designs, but the Dodge breathes better with double the valve count (24 to 12). The 3.5L is also smoother and more sonorous than the truly agricultural sounding big-lunged Ford. But Ford trumps Dodge in backing its V-6 up with a choice of five-speeds, manual or automatic. The only tranny offered in the Challenger SE is a quaint four-speed slushbox that makes do with D, 3, and L shifter positions-no shifter paddles, no AutoStick, no sport-shift algorithms, nor any other concession to driver involvement. Bolt this hand-me-down hardware into a gigantic coupe that weighs about 300 lb more than a comparable Mustang V-6 automatic, and those engine-power bragging rights seem moot at the dragstrip.
Despite a deficiency of 1.4 lb/hp (16.2 to Challenger’s 14.8), the ‘Stang gets the jump on the Challenger, with a slight lead until 60 mph, when they’re even up at 7.3 sec. But the extra gear ratios continue to pay off as the Ford crosses the finish line three-tenths and 1.4 mph ahead of the Dodge’s 15.6 sec at 90.3 mph.
Challenger SRT8
Checking in at the other extreme end of the Challenger spectrum is the rip-snorting SRT8. Introduced for 2008-3/4 with a five-speed automatic only, the 2009 options list includes a six-speed Tremec TR-6060 transmission with a ZF-Sachs 250mm twin-disc clutch. It comes packaged with a hill-start assist system, bright pedals, and a way shorter axle ratio (3.92:1 to the automatic’s 3.06:1) for $695. It also includes a first-to-fourth-gear skip-shift system to help snooker the EPA into granting it city/highway ratings of 14/22 mpg, up from 13/19 for the automatic-not that it matters much to anyone seeking out this type of tire-melting machinery.
Note that both of these $43,000-$44,000 Dodges fall way behind the correspondingly priced Mustang—the 500-hp supercharged Shelby GT500 (12.7 sec at 114.2 mph). On paper the Mustang also out-hustles both SRT8s in our handling tests too, with more total grip (0.90 to 0.87 g), and quicker figure-eight times (25.8 sec at 0.72 average g versus 26.4 at 0.69 for the best SRT8). But as we pointed out in our July comparison, it feels more nose-heavy, and the Challenger conforms much better to imperfect roads. Its hardware is shared with the Charger SRT8, but the Bilstein monotube shocks and spring rates are tweaked for less harshness in the Challenger.
Challenger R/T
That brings Goldilocks to her “just right” Challenger. Well, mostly. This one is projected to be the volume seller, and with good reason. Equipping an R/T for peak performance with the optional six-speed manual and 20-in. tires, as our tester was (adding $995 and $1350, respectively), costs $7550 more than an SE on 18s. That means that, for just over 40% of the price premium paid for an SRT8 six-speed, you get 72% of the power bump—376 versus 425 hp—and 94% of the torque improvement—410 versus 420 lb-ft (automatic R/Ts are rated 372 and 401). Spinning through the same transmissions and gearing, the R/T delivers about 80% of the SRT8’s incremental straight-line performance (5.1 versus 4.6 sec to 60 mph), and its chassis fortifications deliver half of the SRT8’s handling improvement (27.5 sec at 0.63 g versus 26.7 at 0.67 on the figure eight). So you get most of the adrenaline rush and retro soundtrack at half-off clearance pricing.
The R/T’s 5.7L Hemi doesn’t rev quite as high as the SRT8’s 6.1L (5700 versus 6250 rpm), but features variable cam timing and cylinder shutoff (on automatics) to optimize fuel economy. Manuals get the first-to-fourth-gear skip-shift feature, allowing both R/T variants to be rated at 16 mpg city, 25 highway. That’s just one mpg city below the SE V-6’s rating, although we suspect that R/T drivers enjoying the V-8’s burbling torque may realize a greater real-world fuel-economy deficit relative to the V-6. Dragstrip clutch-drops are free of axle-hop, thanks to the manual R/T’s use of load-leveling Sachs Nivomat shocks and asymmetric-diameter halfshafts like those used on Corvettes. Of course, for consistency’s sake, we must note the lighter, less powerful, but similarly priced Mustang Bullitt runs neck and neck with this one too, a tenth ahead at 60 mph and a tenth behind at the quarter.
| 
|